A Question About Ambassador Oren

Here's an issue I've been thinking about for quite a while but never blogged about. Ever since Michael B. Oren's appointment as Israel's ambassodor to the United States was announced last year I've been thinking that this is a problematic choice. I have nothing against Oren himself. He's a right-winger, but not a nut, and has proved himself to be quite a capable diplomat, even though he was an academic before he was chosen for the post. What bothers me about him is what some might see as a technicality, and others will see as a major problem.

Michael Oren was born in the United States, and from the time he immigrated to Israel and until his appointment as ambassador he was a dual citizen of the United States and Israel. The United States does not allow its own citizens to serve as a foreign county's representatives in the States, and so, Oren had to renounce his American citizenship to be accepted by the United States as Israel's ambassador.

People in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office said that the fact that Oren is American makes him understand American politics and diplomacy better, and so he's better equipped to serve Israel's interests in America. That might be true. But wouldn't such an appointment also offend many Americans priding themselves as patriots, who would see the new ambassador's renunciation of his American citizenship, and thus his American identity, in favor of serving a foreign government, as an act of treason on his part?

Ambassador Oren has been in office since the summer of 2009. I haven't heard of any American officials expressing their discomfort with his status as a former American. Still, the question remains whether there are people whose support Israel needs who are quietly offended by this.

Shutting Up Opposing Views

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon were heckled by pro-Palestinian protesters during recent appearances at respected universities. Oren was treated to a series of shout downs at the University of California, Irvine (see Youtube video below), while Ayalon was heckled during a speech at Oxford. The protesters chose not to ask difficult questions during the Q&A, but rather to try to shut the Israeli speakers up by shouting all kinds of slogans. It seemed to be pre-organized, but not in a very smart way. The UC-Irvine protesters (and maybe the ones in Oxford, too, but I haven't seen a video of them) had written their slogans on little notes beforehand, and shouted them out one person at a time, with no connection between what Amb. Oren was saying at that point and what they were shouting.

There is no difference between what these protesters did and what the right-wing organization "Im Tirtzu" is trying to do to the New Israel Fund and left wing organizations. Both groups are fighting to shut up their own opposition while claiming that what they themselves are doing is an exercise in free speech. How can an attempt to silence free speech be itself protected by free speech?

You might say that there is a difference between NGOs like the New Israel Fund and government officials like the deputy foreign minister and a diplomat. You might try to claim that the protesters were speaking truth to power. That isn't the case. People in the audience only heard slogans. They didn't really hear in depth arguments in favor of the Palestinian cause, which the Arab protesters could have made during the Q&A. Audience members didn't hear a debate that would make them understand the situation better. Instead, they got fragments of the Israeli view and even smaller fragments of the pro-Palestinian view, but no interaction between the two. The hecklers turned the event into a disgrace unworthy of an academic venue.

UC-Irvine video after the jump.